“The global economy grew by around 3 percent in 2014 but energy-related CO2 emissions stayed flat,” the first time that’s happened in at least 40 years outside of an economic crisis, the report stated. Energy intensity of the global economy dropped by 2.3 percent in 2014, more than double the average rate of fall over the last decade.

According to the Paris-based organization, there are signs that growth and energy-related emissions may be starting to decouple, with a peak in emissions possible as early as 2020 at no net economic cost.

The finding was welcomed by the EU’s energy chief Miguel Arias Cañete, who tweeted Monday that “it’s not either economic growth or emissions reductions. It’s both. Very timely.”

More support for the idea that growth and energy don’t have to be joined at the hip comes from the EU. According to Eurostat data released Monday, EU energy-related emissions were down by an estimated annual 5 percent in 2014 while GDP was up by 1.3 percent. “So yes, you can grow while protecting the climate,” tweeted Arias Cañete.

The tie between getting richer and building more polluting power plants looks to weaken (although not disappear entirely) in the future. The IEA estimates the global economy will grow by 88 percent from 2013 to 2030; over the same period energy-related CO2 emissions will grow by 8 percent.

The problem is that even that sort of progress may not be enough to meet the goal of keeping the global rise in temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius, something that will the main subject of negotiations during December’s COP21 climate summit in Paris. The IEA is joining into the debate of how to meet those targets, following hard on the heels of a commitment by the G7 nations to decarbonize the world’s economies by the end of the century and substantially cut greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century.

“If stronger action is not forthcoming after 2030, the path … would be consistent with an average temperature increase of around 2.6 degrees Celsius by 2100 and 3.5 degrees Celsius after 2200,” says the IEA report.

Findings show that on current trends renewables will be the leading source of power by 2030, but inefficient coal-fired power generation capacity declines only slightly.

“As IEA analysis has repeatedly shown that the cost and difficulty of mitigating greenhouse-gas emissions increases every year, time is of the essence,” said IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven.

In order to do better, the organization suggests governments should increase energy efficiency, reduce the use of least-efficient coal-fired power plants and eventually ban their construction (something that is bound to be controversial in developing countries), increase investment in renewables in the power sector to $400 billion in 2030 from $270 billion last year, phase out fossil fuel subsidies to end users by 2030 and reduce methane emissions in oil and gas production. The idea is to rely “solely on proven technologies and policies, without changing the economic and development prospects of any region” — in other words, shifting to lower emissions without breaking the bank.

The energy sector will play a crucial role in the global climate change drama.

“Any climate agreement reached at COP21 must have the energy sector at its core or risk being judged a failure,” said IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol. “Climate pledges submitted for COP21 are an important first step to meeting our climate goal, and our report shows that they will have a material impact on future energy trends.”

The shift to a low carbon economy is being backed by investors, who are in broad agreement with the IEA’s strategy.

Stephanie Pfeifer, chief executive of Institutional Investors Group of Climate Change, which represents more than 100 European investors worth a combined €10 trillion, said Monday: “Investors have urged the phasing out of fossil fuels and a long-term emissions reduction goal as key planks of a global agreement, as the report recommends. These measures would give investors’ confidence that the world is united on delivering a low carbon energy system and help boost investment.”

Green groups have also welcomed the report’s focus on making Paris a success and holding countries to their emissions pledges.

Samantha Smith, leader of WWF’s Global Climate and Energy Initiative, said: “The IEA’s analysis confirms what scientists and civil society have said for a while: Countries need to cut emissions more, and they need to cut them more immediately so that we do not face really dangerous climate change.”

Authors:

Related stories on these topics:

There is only ONE god- NOTHING ELSE- he is being all things, playing all the roles, which includes pollution as well as oxygen, mud, gold, rain, sun, moon, animals (animated symbols),’villains’ and ‘heroes’…

Romans 14:14- I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that

there is nothing unclean of itself:

but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

Man, the man-I-fest-ation and representation of said god in the earthly realm, has been given dominion over ALL things, which includes the weather/climate, albeit not via technology but with his M-I-N-D and his thoughts and words.

No wonder the climate gets hotter, if every English-speaking moron keeps saying: “He/she ‘IS’ HOT!” ten times a day!!

Posted on 6/15/15 | 11:38 PM CET

FC

The point isn’t that reducing pollution precludes growth altogether – that’s just trying to reduce the argument to a caricature. The question is whether or not there is a trade-off between reducing carbon emissions and economic growth, which is still true.
The fact that there was growth and frozen emissions doesn’t matter – what matters is whether or not freezing emissions had a negative effect on economic growth, and whether or not the opportunity cost of having done so (based on vague assurances from computer modellers who have been consistently wrong in their doomsday predictions up until now) is worthwhile.

Binding EU directives, the European Parliament, the Council and the Court of Auditors all recognize the time has come for Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) to be reflected in biofuel policy. So why not the Commission?